The fuel consumption of the V8s was at least 50% greater than the current engines.Zynerji wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 2:31 pmJust the heads, probably a derivative of the current v6 tech. They have already proven bulletproof reliability of their V8 short blocks. By updating the short block with the current V6 head technology, I believe they can get 20000 RPM pretty reasonably at a good fuel consumption. The real question is, does TJI have any benefit in a non boosted engine, and does the VLIM supercharge enough to offset this restriction.
The exhaust has to transfer some of its energy to the turbine in order to generate power in the GU-H (what is the difference between an MGU and a GU?). That will reduce the volume of the exhaust.Zynerji wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 2:31 pmHardly. Please provide math/proof since you are stating this as a fact. And these are GU, not MGU. We currently have 6 into 1, where my idea would have 4 into 1, but half the size. And 20000 RPM instead of 12000 should overcome this concern. Even running twin, current sized units at 1.2L each, instead of 1.6L would probably work as you are deleting the work done by the compressor.
The pitch of the engine will change by a small amount (4 x 20,000 = 80,000 vs 6 x 12,000 = 72,000), but how much the turbine in the exhaust dulls the sound I do not know.
The V8s never made that much power. even with 80hp from KERS.Zynerji wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 2:31 pm2.4l v8 was about 875hp, 225ft-lb @ 18000rpm. Adding another 200-300hp through the GU-H -> MU-K would increase low end torque, and high rpm power. Battery loss saves huge amounts of weight. Front Hub motors will add about 7kg to each wheel. I think my suggestion would still come at a net lowering of weight, and a net increase of tractive power from AWD.
The V8s were in the region of 750hp to 800hp, most likely at the lower end of that scale when the rpm limit was set to 18,000rpm.
Losing the battery saves ~30kg. How much does your capacitor weigh?
It would make sense that if you have motors in the front wheels that you also use them as generators, since most braking effort is in the front wheels (about 60/40 with the current weight distribution?).Zynerji wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 7:35 pmI wouldn't be against a 2.4Lv6-NA-DI-TJI-VVT with the twin GU-H, integrated 300kW MU-K and 18000+RPM with 120kW hub motors in the front wheels. A 1200eHP-AWD formula?? Yes, please!!
The real question then becomes about how far you could push the GU-H/MU-K if the design specialized in ONLY recovery/deployment instead of the hybrid MGU tech. I may be open to ammending my "dream" idea to include MGU-K front hub motors if we can get a counter-rotating twin MLC flywheel in the nose for recovery/storage/stabilization...
7kg is significant additional weight in the hubs. Better to have a chassis mounted MGU with driveshafts.
A flywheel would be OK so long as it has better energy density than a battery. If the battery weighs less than the flywheel for the same storage then it would be the better option.
In either case, it would be better suited in the current location instead of out on the nose.